The Times of the Stork
W. Carl Ketcherside
[Page 1] |
If he had been able to read history he would have thrilled at the noble way in which his ancestors were regarded. He would have learned that the Hebrews called him khasidah, the pious bird, from a root in their language which meant "to desire or love strongly." And he would have chuckled to himself at the mistake of Aristotle and Pliny, both of whom wrote that the young storks repay the care of their parents by supporting them when they grow old. He would have mused that the Greek and Roman philosophers had not met any of his hungry broods, but then he was not dependent upon their charity. He could still spear frogs with the best of them when they congregated at the mud flats or waded in the reeds. He would have rejoiced that the Latins, like the Hebrews, called him "the pious bird," avis pia, and that his ancestors in Thessaly were so famed for their skill in destroying serpents, it was made a capital crime to kill a stork. The penalty was the same as for killing a man.
But he knew nothing of history and as he stood with his beak resting upon the feathers of his breast, he was forced to live only in the present, despite his philosophic mien. Yet it was not altogether in the present, because, for several days he had felt the mysterious Call. He could not describe it nor even explain it. There was a subtle urge within, an indefinable tug at his whole being. It had been this way every autumn and it was always irresistible. It was not that he wanted to depart. He loved this pleasant spot and its comforts. He sensed the hardships and the dangers that lay ahead. He realized the need for wariness to escape the African fowlers. He knew from experience that every fiber of his great body would be exhausted by the long journey through the heavens.
But there was the Call. It was like a great power outside and beyond him drawing him onward. At the same time it was like a deep inner compulsion driving him forward. Was it from without or within? Perhaps it was both. He did not know its origin or source; he only knew that he must respond. He was helpless to resist. The Call was greater than himself although it appeared to be simply a part of
[Page 2] |
Are you a dichotomist or a trichotomist with reference to the nature of man? Perhaps you do not know. Let me explain. A dichotomist is one who believes that man is a twofold being; a trichotomist believes he is a threefold being. I am a trichotomist, not alone because it is my conviction that this is what the Bible teaches, but because it explains so many things which otherwise would remain mysteries. One of those things is the difference between man and the lower animals. The use of the word "lower" indicates that man is an animal, but a distinctive animal in that he is on a higher plane. This I believe. I will refer to it later in my article.
"May God himself, the God of peace, make you holy in every part, and keep you sound in spirit, soul, and body, without fault when the Lord Jesus Christ comes" (1 Thess. 5:23). Spirit, soul, and body--what is the difference in these and how are they related to each other? That there is a distinction between soul and spirit is evident from Hebrews 4:12, "For the word of God is living and powerful, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow." Although the two can be separated, the distinction is so keen as to require the revelation of God to make it. It is not our wish or intention to become unduly technical but if the poet is correct in stating that "the proper study of mankind is man," we can invest a little time very profitably in this investigation.
To grasp the meaning of such expressions as "soul" and "spirit" we must learn what sense the original terms conveyed when used by the Holy Spirit. This is the equivalent of saying that we must ascertain the meaning attached to those originals in the common speech of the people to whom they were first spoken through the instrumentality of the Spirit. Unfortunately, we live in a day of shallow thinking. The masses of men are both intellectually lazy and indifferent. It is our constant hope, however, to be able to arouse and stimulate a deeper concern and we believe this can best be done through the leavening influence of the consecrated readers of this journal. It is not for our own selfish interest that we pursue this line of investigation but in sharing with you we will enable you to share with others.
Our task is heightened in our age because of its complexities. In a primitive state of society the wants of a people are few and a very limited vocabulary will suffice for communication. The situation is greatly altered when men, through research and discovery, unveil those things which were previously mysteries and outside their realm of knowledge. Language grows in proportion to the genius of a people. In an attempt to simplify for the masses of the uninitiated, familiar terms must be given varied applications and come to be used interchangeably. While this may tend to clarify for an existing generation it may confuse a succeeding one when these amendments are embalmed in written documents. The problem is even more acute when one deals with intangibles.
Man, as we commonly state it, is both material and immaterial. Since we are physical beings that which is physical makes its greatest impact upon our thought. We speak of man as having a spirit. God is a Spirit, so the divine mind regards man as having a body. So the apostle writes, "I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to
[Page 3] |
The Greek word for body is soma, that for flesh is sarx Although these are sometimes used interchangeably in that liberty of language which is permissible, the first refers to the organization or structure, the second to the material which composes it. Physically, man is a composite of sixteen elements--solids, liquids, and gases--and these are insensitive. Matter has no consciousness. The same elements found in the human frame are found in a grain of wheat and in virtually the same proportion. In his elemental material constituency man does not differ from the lower animals.
The Greek word for soul is psyche and the corresponding Hebrew term is nephesh. Perhaps the best definition of the Hebrew word is that given by Prof. Girdlestone in his Synonyms of the Old Testament. He says that nephesh "has various shades of rendering and meaning, which must be gathered as far as possible under one or two heads. The soul is, properly speaking, the animating principle of the body, and is the common property of man and beast." It is correct to say that the beasts have souls. It is not correct to say that a beast has a spirit. In this regard man differs from the rest of the animal kingdom.
It is obvious that there are certain characteristics beyond the merely material which men and animals hold in common. These must be properties of the soul and not of the spirit. Among them we mention sensation, emotion, desire, appetite, passion and instinct. These may be regulated in the human by his rational powers but they exist separate and apart from such powers. So Girdlestone further says of the soul, "It is something more than the bare animating principle of the body; at least, if it is regarded in this light, a large view must be taken of that mysterious organization which we call the body, and it must include the bodily appetites and desires. Thus the soul, according to the old Testament, is the personal center of desire, inclination, and appetite, and its normal condition is to be operating in or through means of a physical organization, whether human or otherwise."
The Greek psyche had two connotations. The first was related to the breath which made life possible for the animate creation. In this sense it is defined by the lexicographers as "the vital force which animates the body and shows itself in breathing." That animals and men have this in common will be seen by a comparison of Acts 20:10 and Revelation 8:9 where the word is found and translated "life" in both instances. From this the word acquired an extended meaning and came to refer to the soul, which is defined as "the seat of the feelings, desires, affections and aversions. "
That which exalts man above all of the rest of creation is the spirit. The Hebrew term for this is ruach. Its Greek equivalent is pneuma. It is the spirit, not the soul, which makes it possible for man to attune his heart unto God and to commune with him. Accordingly, the Holy Spirit of God acts upon and in conjunction with the spirit of man. "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God" (Rom. 8:16). God is never referred to as a soul but it is distinctly said that he is a Spirit (John 4:24). The soul is directly related to the physical being; the spirit may exist outside of such a body.
It is regrettable that a great deal of error arises because men are not acquainted with the laws of language. Words are like persons in that they possess both "body" and "soul." The body of language consists of those symbols, either written or spoken, by which communication between rational beings is made possible. The soul of language consists of the ideas and concepts formed within the intellect. Words have personality and versatility and can project
[Page 4] |
There are those who make such a mistake with the word "spirit." Because it originally signified "wind" they assume that it must always be so limited and confined. They ignore the fact that among ancient peoples the wind itself became a symbol and any term used for it must be extensive and applicable to those qualities which are symbolized. That this is true with reference to ruach is evidenced by Dr. Girdlestone:
"The word ruach, like its Greek equivalents, pneuma and anemos, the Latin spiritus, the English ghost, and similar words in other languages, originally signifies wind or breath. It is clear that the wind is regarded in Scripture as a fitting emblem of the mighty penetrating power of the Invisible God; and that the breath is supposed to symbolize, not only the deep feelings which are generated within man, such as sorrow and anger, but also kindred feelings in the Divine nature.
God is not set forth in Scripture as a soul, i.e., the center of physical appetite and the animating principle of a body, but as a spirit, i.e., an unseen living being, capable of deep emotions. It is revealed that God, and He alone, has the faculty of communicating His spirit or life to His creatures, who are thus enabled to feel, think, speak, and act in accordance with the Divine will."
A consideration of these pertinent facts would enable those who are mistakenly called "soul-sleepers" to avoid the erroneous idea that the word "spirit" always connotes only breath or wind, and thus offset their secondary conclusion that there is no consciousness after death. That there is no feeling or memory upon the part of the body (soma) in the grave is easily admissible, but there is more to man than the material. What has here been said of the Hebrew ruach is also applicable to the Greek pneurna. In view of this, the lexicographers point out that pneuma in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 refers to "the rational part of man, the power of perceiving and grasping divine and eternal things and upon which the Spirit of God exerts its influence."
We concur with the expression of Martin Luther that the spirit is "the highest and noblest part of man, which qualifies him to lay hold of incomprehensible, invisible, eternal things, in short, it is the house where God's word and faith are at home."
Our thesis in this article is that man who denies God is actually worse off than the lower animals. Because he possesses a rational faculty he can ascend higher; because he is capable of doing this he can fall farther. We use even this expression accommodatively, for animals cannot be said to fall at all seeing that they possess no moral or ethical consciousness. But man is responsible because he is rational; he is accountable because he can associate truths and their consequences. Yet the lower animals, guided by instinct, respond to all of the guidance of the creator who made them, while man resists and refuses the tug of God on his heart. He employs the very mind which makes him a little lower than God to revolt against God, even though in so doing he admits the need of a God by making one of himself. These observations will prepare our minds for a summarization of truths.
1. In view of the fact that the soul (psyche) is the animating principle of the bodily organism which manifests itself in the expansion and contraction of the lungs and the resultant functions of the other organs, animals possess a soul
[Page 5] |
2. Instinct is a possession common to both man and beast and is, therefore, related to the soul and not to the spirit. Instinct produces a certain knowledge designed for preservation of the species. In man it can he regulated by reason but because this is superior to instinct it may distort and sublimate it and actually employ such excess as to be destructive. "These fellows, however, are ready to mock at anything that is beyond their immediate knowledge, while in the things that they know by instinct like unreasoning beasts they have become utterly depraved" (Jude 10).
3. Instinct, unattended by rational faculties, is for the preservation of the physical existence only. Accordingly, when the soul becomes extinct at death and the tissue disintegrates there is no promise of revival or resurrection. Brute beasts are "born in the course of nature to be caught and killed" (2 Pet. 2:12). Rational beings, possessed of a spirit, are not so constructed. It is true that because man is an animal in relation to the natural realm, his body disintegrates and the soul is extinct at death, but spirit is indestructible. For this reason there will be a resurrection of all men, the just and the unjust. The term "resurrection" always applies to the body, never to the spirit.
4. In view of the fact that the body we now have is adapted to life in the natural realm and not to life in a spiritual realm, the resurrected body will not be like the present body. "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 15:50). "So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown in the earth as a perishable thing is raised imperishable...sown as an animal body, it is raised as a spiritual body." Strictly speaking we will not possess a soul, as distinct from the spirit, in the resurrected state.
5. The attributes of the soul will not be preserved in the resurrection body. Since it will be both imperishable and immortal the instinct of self-preservation could not exist seeing that its very presence implies the possibility of dissolution or destruction. In the resurrection state, desire, appetite and passion will no longer obtain. As an example, the sex instinct, common to man and beast and directly related to the preservation of the species, will be no part of the resurrected state. This may serve to explain the words of Jesus to the Sadducees, "In the resurrection there is no such thing as marrying or being given in marriage--men live like the angels in heaven" (Matt. 22:20). The sex instinct belongs only to the animal creation; marriage is the divinely ordained state in which rational animals are authorized to indulge it.
6. By the same token, those characteristics and attributes which belong to the spirit will not be abrogated in the immortal body. Will, reason and affection belong to us not because we are related to the animal creation but because we are related to the creator. Certainly they will be perfected in a manner in which they can never be while we are in the flesh. In this life we are a composite of flesh, soul, and spirit, and we are constantly affected by them all. Reason can never be wholly free from emotion, nor affection devoid of all prejudice. Ours is ever a life of struggle against the enemy of ourselves and we are destined to be free only when we have met and wrestled with the keeper of the last disputed barricade.
We recognize that the casual reader will jump to the conclusion that our explanation herein given contradicts the implication of the passage from the King James Version which we cited to prove that man is a trichotomy. This version reads, "I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." This might seem to indicate that the psyche (soul) would be preserved in the resurrection when our Lord comes. We do not think this is the case and some
[Page 6] |
The soul is the responsive mechanism by which migratory birds answer the call of instinct, which is actually the call of the creator through nature. Without benefit of reason they have no power to refuse the call. For this cause it is often said that they are driven by blind impulse. Perhaps the word "blind" is misleading and the word "irresistible"would be a better term. Only those who possess reason can become unreasonable. It is also true that only rational beings can feel a sense of remorse for failure to respond. One gap between the lower animals and man which cannot be bridged is that of conscience. Evolution has no way to account for its inception or development. Perhaps George Washington was right when he wrote in his childhood copybook that it was "a little spark of celestial fire."
The spirit is the responsive mechanism by which intelligent creatures answer the call of God and his demands upon their lives. For this reason the appeal of God to mankind is a rational and not an emotional one. "Come now, let us reason together," is the summons of Deity to mankind. This does not mean that there is not an emotional element involved. So long as man is in the flesh he is a total entity, threefold in nature. That which affects him in one area affects him to an extent in all. But the Spirit of God issues his appeal to the spirit of man, and when the latter becomes impervious to the call because of hardness of heart, God says, "My Spirit shall not always strive with man."
An appeal which reaches the emotions through the rational faculties is right and proper because it is worthy of the dignity of man. Such an overture enters the being through the gate of intellect and commands the entire being from the throne room of the mind. The reverse is not true for the attempt to reach the intellect purely through the emotions is to "climb up some other way." It serves only to cloud the reason and warp its function. Such an appeal must always be superficial and will eventuate in disillusionment. Because of this, feelings and sensations are not proper criteria of our standing with God. They belong to the animal rather than to the spiritual level of our existence. We would not want to be without them, for we would be cold indeed, yet we must control them and not allow them to control us. A fire in the house is one thing; a house in the fire is a wholly different thing.
Much of what parades under the banner of "Christianity" in these days is an overt appeal to emotionalism. Men tend to confuse the arousing of "animal spirits" with the work of the Holy Spirit. Paroxysms of grief and sobbing accompanied by hysterical screaming and shouting are regarded as evidence that the power of God is at work. Generally such demonstrations are in inverse proportion to the ratio of intellectual attainment. The fact that such manifestations appeal primarily to the unlearned, ignorant, or emotionally disturbed, is excused on the basis that "not many wise men after the flesh are called." Such an interpretation of this passage confirms the ignorance of the meaning of this scripture by those who offer it.
We live in an age of intellectual growth and there is a danger that those who have developed their mental capacities in other fields will confuse the religion of Jesus Christ with the unwholesome and unscrupulous abuses of it in the emotional realm, and will turn away from it in disgust. They may regard it as a resort for the credulous and a form of escapism for the psychologically unstable. Actually, such a reaction on their part is unscien-
[Page 7] |
God created light and then created the eye to respond to it. These are complementary to each other and for that reason one is useless without the other. It is only as the eye responds to the light that it fulfills its divinely ordained function. What light is to the physical realm the truth of the Spirit is to the spiritual domain. The primary purpose of the human spirit is to respond to the light of truth through the eye of the intellect. To do this brings the spirit of man and the Holy Spirit into conjunction with each other and restores the harmonious relationship which should exist between an intelligent creator and his intelligent creation. Failure to respond leaves the inner man in darkness and makes impossible the perfection of the personality. One who never heeds the call of the Spirit is like one who remains blind from birth.
Man, because of his nature, acts as a result of stimulation or motivation. The Holy Spirit presents those motivations which are calculated to cause the human spirit to react in such fashion as to prepare for achievement of individual destiny. The human spirit can be happy only when deep yearnings are satisfied and the Christian revelation is perfectly adapted for the attainment of such happiness or satisfaction. We think that most psychologists will agree that, regardless of how many other things are essential, there are three basic needs of the personality. These are: (1) A sense of real forgiveness in which the remorse for the past is overcome and no guilt consciousness lingers; (2) A true ideal to challenge one to rise above self in the present and to lose that self in a cause which transcends the individual; (3) A hope for the future which provides a proper incentive in the belief of the perpetuity of the personality beyond the limitations of time and space, that is, a conviction that the grave is not final.
The human being, possessed of rational powers, is able to live in three dimensions of time--past, present and future. Memory, determination, perception and imagination permit projection into the age to come as well as that which is past. Happiness demands a proper adjustment as to all of these, and the three cardinal attributes of the Way faith, hope and love make such adjustment attainable. Faith has to do with the past and the belief of testimony concerning historical fact; hope reaches into the future which need have no horizon except God; love is the means by which one identifies himself with the needs of others and thus by identification, may live on a universal rather than a merely personal plane.
The infinite mind has provided assurance that our sins have been blotted out or erased by the cleansing power of the blood of Jesus Christ and they will be remembered against us no more. The sinless example of his life, even when tempted in all points as we are, gives us an ideal toward which we may constantly aspire, knowing that it is not in the arriving but in the striving that the blessing is conferred. The promise of a life beyond narrow confines and limitations, not only of the grave but of the temporal existence itself, offers such an incentive as to stagger our very imaginations. Just as the Holy Spirit is free so the human spirit tugs and struggles for liberty. But freedom from remorse for the past and fear of retribution in the future can only be won by recapturing the present in the fullest sense. This necessitates a heart filled with the love that casts out fear. Such love is a fruit of the Spirit. It is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which is given unto us.
The secret of response to the call of God is opening the door to the heart so the Holy Spirit may enter. Regardless of what else one may have, if he does not possess the indwelling Spirit he is away from God. "If any man have not the
[Page 8] |
Once we realize that the Holy Spirit is shut out of our lives until we open the door, and once we realize that we open the door when we are baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus, we will cease to rebel against a truth so obvious. It is still true that, "Through faith you are all sons of God in union with Christ Jesus. Baptized into union with him, you have all put on Christ as a garment" (Gal. 3:26, 27). If we may be allowed to change the metaphor to conform to this statement we must conclude that there is a difference between having a garment available, and the act of putting it on. The whole nature of man, guided both by instinct and reason, cries out for union with God. What a terrible tragedy that he who is the apex of God's creation is less responsive to the Call than the lower animals over whom he exercises lordship by divine fiat.